Comments for "Chelsea Handler sexually assults her staff" Video at VideoSift.com

By Nebosuke

Nebosuke (http://www.videosift.com/member/Nebosuke) — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:30:43 -0700

That was awesome.

By Sagemind

Sagemind (http://www.videosift.com/member/Sagemind) — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:33:31 -0700

Ever notice that when the gender roles are reversed, it's funny (and unlikely).
If that was a man, no one would be laughing, even if it was meant to be funny.

I work in a office where I am the only male. I constantly get comments about me being only a man and watch as they put up their all-male (almost nude) firefighter calenders..., and this is considered no problem. If the gender roles were reversed, I'm sure lawyers would be introduced.

By the was, I am in no way complaining, my view is live and let live, I don't care what they do or say, I laugh it off. I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.

Just my 2¢

By Tofumar

Tofumar (http://www.videosift.com/member/Tofumar) — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:32:23 -0700

For some reason, I can't help finding her obnoxious and extremely attractive at the same time.

By Debacle

Debacle (http://www.videosift.com/member/Debacle) — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:17:24 -0700

>> ^Sagemind:
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women

What's going on here?

By ant

ant (http://www.videosift.com/member/ant) — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:57:14 -0700

>> ^Debacle:
>> ^Sagemind:
I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women

What's going on here?

Sounds like my group a while ago. 4 gals + me (male). DOH. However, they're not my types.

By gwiz665

gwiz665 (http://www.videosift.com/member/gwiz665) — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:37:24 -0700

Ant: Not ladybugs?

By kronosposeidon

kronosposeidon (http://kronosposeidon.videosift.com) — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:24:01 -0700

The guy whose pants Chelsea stuck her hands in looks like Timothy McVay. Just sayin'.

By Trancecoach

Trancecoach (http://www.videosift.com/member/Trancecoach) — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:30:28 -0700

is this supposed to be funny?

By Don_Juan

Don_Juan (http://www.videosift.com/member/Don_Juan) — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:36:28 -0700

Yo! And at the supermarket checkout, waiting in line, what magazines are displayed? Three out of four blatently advertise sexual articles for women's consumption. If they were articles for men's consumption they would NOT be displayed! Where did we go wrong guys? Larry Flint - DO SOMETHING!!!

By ashes2flames

ashes2flames (http://www.videosift.com/member/ashes2flames) — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:00:19 -0700

She can assault my staff anytime.

By HadouKen24

HadouKen24 (http://www.videosift.com/member/HadouKen24) — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:23:48 -0700

>> ^Don_Juan:
Yo! And at the supermarket checkout, waiting in line, what magazines are displayed? Three out of four blatently advertise sexual articles for women's consumption. If they were articles for men's consumption they would NOT be displayed! Where did we go wrong guys? Larry Flint - DO SOMETHING!!!

Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.

You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.

Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.

(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)

By ashes2flames

ashes2flames (http://www.videosift.com/member/ashes2flames) — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:34:25 -0700

It's you.

By Bidouleroux

Bidouleroux (http://www.videosift.com/member/Bidouleroux) — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:59:13 -0700

>> ^HadouKen24:
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.

You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.

Mmm, this is some good pop psychology crap. To prepubescent children, a half-naked woman/man doesn't mean more than a harlequin novel. Yes they understand the words, yes they see the nakedness, but they don't assign sexual meaning to these stimuli by themselves, at least not anything they are conscious of or can act on. They have to be told what to think of it, and every Dr. Phil and Reverent Nutjob is eager to have his say. And the worst you can do isn't showing them some naked pictures or an article talking about sex, but to tell them it's wrong or unnatural to see/read it and have feelings about it, feelings that they don't even have yet: you're training them to think as wrong something they will unconsciously seek and have an urge for later, namely "sex" (in all its forms). You can't help it, they won't be able to help it, and trying to shield them from it is idiotic at best and criminally negligent at worst. What is even worst is preaching prudishness and then buying the worst magazines: not Playboy where girls are paid to be naked, but magazines where girls are half-naked to sell you something. The first is simple prostitution (consumption), whereas the second is akin to pimping (exploitation). You're telling them exploiting women/men is O.K. if you're hypocrital about it.

By maatc

maatc (http://maatc.videosift.com) — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:09:44 -0700

*femme *sexuality

By siftbot

siftbot (http://www.videosift.com/member/siftbot) — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:09:45 -0700

Adding video to channels (Femme, Sexuality) - requested by maatc.

By quantumushroom

quantumushroom (http://www.videosift.com/member/quantumushroom) — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:32:23 -0700

Funny. Unlike feminazis.

I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.

Welcome to PC-liberal "freedom!"

By Hive13

Hive13 (http://www.videosift.com/member/Hive13) — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:35:56 -0700

I would write to BEST emails if I had a boss checking my work like that.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://www.videosift.com/member/siftbot) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:21:08 -0700

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assult, tv' to 'Chelsea Handler, sexual assault, tv, nice, noodle, boop' - edited by calvados

By calvados

calvados (http://www.videosift.com/member/calvados) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:23:09 -0700

Yarr, 'tis a fine screenshot!

/bewbs

By MarineGunrock

MarineGunrock (http://marinegunrock.videosift.com) — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:36:30 -0700

>> ^HadouKen24:
>> ^Don_Juan:
Where did we go wrong? By going mainly for visual sexual stimuli in our magazines. By going for primarily verbal stimuli, women's mags have the advantage of being relatively safe around young children--either they can't read, or they don't have the context (frequently) to understand what's going on.

You have to take the time to read for the stimuli aimed at women, whereas one only need a pair of eyes and a brain reasonably functional at interpreting visual images to ingest the stimuli aimed at men.

Yes indeed, sex is yet another area where the industrious efficiency of men shows our consistent superiority to the energy-wasting, inefficient methods of the weaker sex.

(To those who don't get the ironic barb in the above, one of us is stupid. There's no telling whether it's you or me.)

Fail.

I'll tell you why:

Yes, men's magazines have barely clothed women on them. However, there are numerous women's magazines at the checkout that feature women in bikinis - like Shape or Women's health. So no, women's magazines are no no more "safe" then Men's.

(I'm referring to Stuff, Maxim and FHM)

By spoco2

spoco2 (http://www.videosift.com/member/spoco2) — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:57:05 -0700

The simple matter is, most guys don't mind the sexual attention of a female (as long as it doesn't go too far if you are already in a relationship, but even then most guys would tend to just ask them to stop, but still be flattered), whereas most females don't want the attention of the majority of men in their office.

Women are the pursued, men are the pursuers... in the majority of cases.

Face it, most guys watching this video wouldn't mind being the guys in it, whereas most women looking at a role reversal of this would be repulsed.

By randomize

randomize (http://www.videosift.com/member/randomize) — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:49:20 -0700

this should probably be marked nsfw

By swampgirl

swampgirl (http://swampgirl.videosift.com) — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:23 -0700

meh

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:43:48 -0700

joining the ranks of the meh